Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
The latest Iowa poll numbers from ABC News and the Washington Post are as follows: Gingrich 33, Romney 18, Paul 18, Perry 11, with everyone else in single digits. That's the headline. But what I find more incredible is this series of questions on candidate attributes as viewed by Iowans. Click to embiggen:
The only category where Romney rates highly is in the "Can Beat Obama" line, where he's still bested by Gingrich. Everywhere else is disastrous for him, particularly that last question of "Honest and Trustworthy," where it seems the flip-flops have done him in.
My question is: how much is Iowa the exception here? If it is not, Romney is going to have more serious problems than I ever thought winning outside of the Northeast during the course of this primary. What do you think?
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
There's a reason that Romney had a campaign in NH, SC, FL, NV, ME, and MI before Iowa. Huckabee's vile campaign in 2008 still leaves Iowa a deeply unpleasant place to be a Mitt supporter. Outside Iowa, I don't believe that any of the primary campaigns focused on bigotry. There was an effort in Florida's panhandle, and some token stuff in South Carolina, but nothing terribly serious. For the general, Iowa remains the sole state where I think Mitt would be likely to lose, but Perry and Newt would be likely to win.
There's also the high degree to which Iowa tends to favor big government, which also helped persuade Mitt to stay away, just as it kept Newt favoring other states. I've never been able to work out what does Iowa in, politically, making it so different from all of its neighbors (which are often to the left of Iowa, but are rarely like Iowa).
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
If there was a single articulate conservative in the race who had experience as a political executive and an impressive, conservative record, Romney would be toast.
Apr '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
Romney is not a conservative, not even close. The country is in a Tea Party mood. When you read the tea leaves, Romney looks bad. Even if he got the nomination, lots of Republican voters might stay home.
Gingrich's Fannie Mae lobbying is a huge liability. He's a global warming nut. He supported all kinds of gigantic government programs. Ideological conservatives might not turn out for him either. Although, Gingrich has a talent for positioning himself as a limited government conservative, contrary to facts. Maybe he can pull it off.
Paul upsets neoconservatives. On one view, many Republicans would stay home, if Paul got the nomination. Paul is just too conservative for a lot of big government, establishment Republicans. On another view, Paul gets the highest marks for honesty and trustworthiness. Thirty years of 100% consistent, conservative votes is worth something to the voters. Also, he predicted the current economic crisis. Then maybe he can persuade enough voters to elect him. I dunno.
The nomination process falls exactly down the fault lines in Republican Party ideologies: unlimited government vs limited government: establishment vs Tea Party. I still think tea leaves are the best predictor of the future.
Oct '10
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
How much is Iowa the exception here? I'll tell ya: Ron Paul is tied for 2nd.
'nuff said.
(Just to clarify, when I suggest that Iowa is "the exception," I mean only with regard to Ron Paul, who in the real world wouldn't be 2nd, he'd be 2nd-to-last)
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:51amRe: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
Really? You think that 1) Iowans are bigots and 2) Mitt plays just as well in the South and Southwest as the other candidates?
This seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Dec '10
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
We've stated on Ricochet with some regularity that we'd vote for a syphilitic camel over Obama. Romney is that syphilitic camel. The last time he looked like a reasonable choice to Republican voters was when McCain was the other option, and even then he turned out to be less desirable. His primary public service accomplishment was governing Massachusetts just conservatively enough to not get reelected, and his claim to fame is providing Obama with the blueprint for Obamacare. Is Iowa an outlier? No, at least it's not in my opinion.
Jan '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
Is Romney's organization enough? Is Newt's lack of organization too much to overcome? Will political success bring money, or does money buy success?
Obviously, we now take for granted that a candidate needs ideas, but he also needs money and organization. There's a good logic to that formula, since a president is not only a world leader who needs ideas, he's also got to manage an executive branch. Obama had a couple of appealing sound bytes masquerading as ideas, which disintegrated moments after reality appeared, and he's a stunningly terrible administrator.
Before the last election, I had long believed that ideas were far more important than money. But last election proved sobering. From the beginning, Obama's "ideas" were academic puffery, devoid of substance ("we are the ones we've been waiting for"). What gave Obama victory last time was a huge war chest and the good fortune of facing another undisciplined, scatter-shot conservative.
For me, this election comes down to trust in either money or ideas, since neither candidate has both. Does either have enough, or enough of both?
Oct '10
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
What gave Obama victory last time was the fact that he was a complete blank slate, the media were solidly behind him, and lotsa people wanted to feel good by casting a historic vote. That's all gone now (the media's still there, but you won't hear the likes of Brooks wetting himself anymore).
And yet Obama still only got 53% of the popular vote (and in fact lost the popular vote in the Dem primary/caucus process to Her Thighness), against a most pathetic candidate with a most incompetent campaign.
Whoever we run will beat Obama, because nobody who voted for McCain in '08 will vote for Obama in '12 (and if they could bring themselves to vote for McCain, they won't sit out '12), and because there's a boatload of people who voted for Obama in '08 who won't vote for him in '12.
Apr '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
The Hill reports that the establishment is unhappy with the two front runners, Romney and Gingrich.
No mention of Ron Paul.
Rush Limbaugh says that the media bias in favor of Democrats gives liberals a 10-15 point advantage in any election. Ron Paul experiences the same kind of media blackout in the primary.
Jun '10
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
Since 1988, Iowa has voted for the Donkeys every time but once. In 2004 they voted for Bush 50/49. The caucus format certainly does not suit Romney very well because he doesn't exactly make a person want to go have a beer with him, if you get my drift. Being as my chances of guzzling a few with Romney are pretty slim (I don't like beer that much), I would, as the Majestic Shrimp eloquently elucidated, vote for him in a heartbeat over Obama. He will be a better candidate than McCain was on the latter's very best day. Newt, however has the fire and the quickness of mind to out-debate Obama. I am not sure how much the debates influence the election. It is my guess that they can hurt a candidate more than help, but Reagan proved that rule exception. Anyhow, I agree a lot with Ditto, except it will take many, many boatloads to remove Obama from the Presidency.
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 6:53amJan '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
I do think a large percentage of evangelical voters will not vote for an LDS candidate in the primary. They will vote for one in the general over Obama, but will not help a Mormon get the nomination. I've heard as much from more than one Evangelical conservative. Yes, that is anecdotal, but I think James is right in pointing out how Huckabee played this card to despicable effect in 2008.
It's a dirty secret that conservatives won't admit, but I personally believe that if Mitt were from a more orthodox Christian faith, he would be doing much better with the very important evangelical portion of the base, and he would be close to sewing the race up.
That said, I don't think you can call this bias bigotry. I think that a strictly biblical based faith is a big part of what informs evangelicals' political beliefs and what they believe our national policies should be. No one criticizes the strong support for Israel that comes from belief in a Biblical teaching, for example. I think that since the Bible is such a big part of who evangelicals are, their concerns about what they see as the unbiblical, or extra-biblical, aspects of the LDS faith is just them being true to who they are and what they believe.
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 6:57amJun '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
Yes, but couldn't we have said the same about Dole, Bush 43, or McCain?
Dec '10
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
And we didn't vote for Obama because he's black. It had nothing to do with his policies. </sarc>
Jan '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
KP, I'm not making this up out of whole cloth. I've heard evangelical people whom I respect tell me this with their own mouth. Romney's LDS faith may not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of evangelicals.
Apr '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
Ben Domenech
Really? You think that 1) Iowans are bigots and 2) Mitt plays just as well in the South and Southwest as the other candidates?
This seems a bit of a stretch to me. ·
In the Southwest? Heck, yes. NV's one of Mitt's easiest wins this cycle. In 2008, Mitt won all the SW swing states bar McCain's home. Along with the Mid-West, the Southwest is Mitt's home turf.
The South went in a series of three way ties; this time Newt will do better there (although Mitt was beating Perry there when Perry was big), but it's not like they won't vote Mitt in the general.
Dec '10
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
It's quite a stretch to go from a few people you know and respect to "a lot of evangelicals." My bigger complaint against the charge is that whether there is any truth to it or not it has become the default excuse for Romney supporters when others don't see the light. It has become comparable to Obama's defenders who cry racism any time someone disagrees with his policy positions or (non)governing style.
I've tried really hard to like Romney, but I can't. In '08 when the situation was different I liked him a lot more. This time around, with these problems, with the feeling of immanent disaster plaguing every moment, Mittens is just not what we need. Newt may not be what we need either, but for me, at this time, he is much closer to the ideal than Mitt.
Aug '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
I've heard that argument, but I've only heard it from the left-wing media. All along they've been proclaiming that because Romney's a Mormon, the evangelicals won't vote for him.
But I get the sense that this is the left-wing media trying to drive a wedge through the party, and nothing more than that. (And I work at an evangelical church. So far the topic has never come up.)
You can be sure that if Romney gets the nomination (which I consider increasingly unlikely, having little to do with his Mormonism and a heckuva lot to do with the enthusiasm gap) the media will bang this drum as loudly as possible. Obviously they don't care if he's a Mormon or worships Gozer the Gozerian. The goal is to create division.
Apr '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
In KP's defense, while I haven't heard it this cycle, I heard it plenty in 2008. Scratch the surface, and the people saying it were always RINOs arguing for Huckabee/ McCain electability, with a swathe of non-Conservative/ Mitt views. Like the people who talk about Obama's Kenyan anti-colonialism generally have non-racist views leading to emotions that inspired them to find stupid things plausible, rather than being racist and having this lead to being capitalist.
It's a problem in Iowa, but it's pretty marginal in 49 states. In the general, we'll be deluged in anti-LDS hate, but it'll be the atheists and liberal Christians hating them for being too Christian, which should help cheer up the evangelical vote.
Apr '11
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
The King Prawn
I've tried really hard to like Romney, but I can't. In '08 when the situation was different I liked him a lot more. This time around, with these problems, with the feeling of immanent disaster plaguing every moment, Mittens is just not what we need. Newt may not be what we need either, but for me, at this time, he is much closer to the ideal than Mitt. ·
What immanent disaster do you see that Newt seems stronger than Mitt on? The only clear known "disaster" I see approaching is spending, and Mitt's lifetime record is unmatched on cutting spending. Spending went up under Newt, down under Mitt, despite a somewhat less favorable economic climate. Newt is personally, locally (almost unparalleled pork), and federally comfortable with spending and has supported more spending on every sector of government. Welfare reform was a big deal, despite his apologizing for it, and his rhetoric in favor of dramatic spending is, well, dramatic. Even prof. Rahe, though, recognizes that Mitt would balance the budget.
Is it a foreign policy disaster for which you want the surge opposing Newt? Or a judicial one, remembering Miers (Mitt against, Newt for)?
Dec '10
Re: Iowa's Opinion of Candidate Attributes
James Of England
The only clear known "disaster" I see approaching is spending, and Mitt's lifetime record is unmatched on cutting spending.
What we can know of it.